(1) Terminal leave or severance payments for unused sick leave or vacation leave are not to be included in determining the salary or compensation base upon which retirement allowances or pensions are to be computed under the laws governing the Washington law enforcement officers' and firefighters' retirement system (chapter 41.26 RCW) or either of the two judicial retirement systems (chapters 2.10 and 2.12 RCW); however, such payments are to be included in determining the salary or compensation base upon which retirement allowances or pensions are to be computed under the laws governing the Washington public employees' retirement system (chapter 41.40 RCW), the Washington state teachers' retirement system (chapter 41.32 RCW) and the Washington state patrol retirement system (chapter 43.43 RCW). (2) Where terminal leave or severance payments for unused sick leave or vacation leave are to be included in determining the salary or compensation base upon which retirement allowances or pensions are to be computed, the only such payments thus to be included are those reflecting such leave actually earned but not taken during the time period being utilized in each case to determine the appropriate salary or compensation base.
In order to receive reimbursement for unused sick leave, pursuant to RCW 28A.58.097, at the time of separation from school district employment due to retirement, an employee must have separated from such employment and have been granted a retirement allowance under the laws governing the Teachers' Retirement System or the Public Employees' Retirement System, whichever applies; however, it is not necessary that the employee have actually filed for retirement prior to the date of his or her separation so long as the application is thereafter filed within a reasonable period of time and without the occurrence of any intervening covered employment.
Analysis and determination, under the Bakehus [Bakenhus] rule, of the constitutionality of three proposed bills relating to disability retirement for certain municipal law enforcement officers and fire fighters, distinguishing between substantive and procedural changes in the law.
The provisions of RCW 41.26.150 are subject to the constitutional principles with respect to public employees' pensions in this state which have been enunciated by the Washington supreme court in such cases as Bakenhus v. Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695, 296 P.2d 536 (1956)
1.Where a LEOFF member after a period of temporary disability retirement returns to active duty, the member's employer is not required under RCW 41.26.140 to grant longevity pay, vacation accrual or similar benefits to the member to the same extent such benefits would be available to another employee of the same rank who had been continuously employed with no period of disability retirement.2.The term "current salary" as used in RCW 41.26.140(2) may or may not include "longevity pay", depending on the type of "longevity pay" used by a particular LEOFF employer.3.RCW 41.26.140 does not restrict LEOFF employers from adopting policies or entering into collective bargaining agreements regarding longevity pay and vacation accrual, so long as the policies or collective bargaining agreements are consistent with the requirements of the statute.
If the Legislature amends the statutes governing the Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System, Plan II (LEOFF II), by reducing the retirement age from 58 years to 50 years, reducing the number of months of service from 60 months to 24 months in determining the final average salary, and requiring any increased costs to be borne by local taxing districts/employers, the State would not be required by RCW 43.135.060(1) to reimburse those local taxing districts.
RCW 41.16.020 creates a municipal firemen's pension board and provides that one member is the city comptroller or clerk. If a charter city eliminates the position of comptroller and assigns those functions to a director of finance, the city can assign the director of finance to the pension board instead of the clerk.
Unless deemed by the Court to be merely a legislative clarification of existing law and not a change in the law as it now exists, House Bill No. 986 relating to the formula to be utilized in computing the service retirement allowances of state elected officials, would be unconstitutional as applied to existing members of the Public Employees' Retirement System under the reasoning of Bakenhus v. Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695, 296 P.2d 536 (1956) and later cases.
RCW 41.80.040(5) prohibits the State, as an
employer, from engaging in collective bargaining regarding supplemental
retirement benefits for state employees independent of state-controlled
retirement plans. It also prohibits engaging in collective bargaining
regarding retiree health and welfare benefits.
Because of the necessity for a legally sufficient description in connection with an offer to sell, or sale of, real property an offer to sell a portion of a larger tract of land, or the execution of a purchase and sale agreement covering such a tract of land, constitutes a "division" of the land under the definition of a "short subdivision" contained in RCW 58.17.020(6) or (7) so as to render applicable the various provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW relating to short plats and short subdivisions.